Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
θεὸς in John 1:1 is a typical predicate nominative. The article has nothing to do with whether the Father is being referred to or the Son--that is determined by the context and construction.
That much is untrue. The article before θεὸς always denotes the person of the Father when referring to what is in heaven, unless intentionally used of a false god.

Since word order in Greek is flexible, the article in an equative construction denotes the subject, and the noun which lacks the article is a predicate.

θεὸς (in its various cases) is also anarthrous in John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, 1:18, and many other places where the Father is being spoken of. It is clear that you don't have a meaningful grasp on the language--so why are you commenting on it?
I have never denied that anarthrous θεὸς cannot denote the Father. Strawman. It always denotes the Father in some aspect. It may be an impersonal reference to the Father: it may be a reference to his properties, or his work. Eg, Jn 1:18,

You're only going to lead those astray on the Greek who haven't learned it themselves. And you're doing yourself a disservice by allowing theology to drive your study of the language.
Meaningless.

I think you need to get this idea of the Trinitarian boogieman out of your head. It's keeping you from forming rational arguments, you're just butchering the Greek more and more as you are confuted. Integrity and honesty are important. It's becoming meaningless to converse with you because you are only interested in dogmatism.
It is plain that the failure to acknowledge o θεὸς as the person of the Father is the root cause of Trinitarianism.
 

brianrw

Member
That much is untrue. The article before θεὸς always denotes the person of the Father when referring to what is in heaven, unless intentionally used of a false god.
What I said was absolutely true, and this is a very disingenuous comment. Whether you receive it or not, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ very much is Christ being referred to as "the great God," which corresponds with the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 (אֵל גִּבּוֹר). As is Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, "Your throne, O God, is forever," where it is employed in a nominative of address. Also in 2 Peter 1:1 τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, "Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." It's not just me saying this, it's how the Greeks read and commented on these passages going back to the earliest record.

I have never denied that anarthrous θεὸς cannot denote the Father. Strawman. It always denotes the Father in some aspect. It may be an impersonal reference to the Father: it may be a reference to his properties, or his work. Eg, Jn 1:18,
You're again placing a theological meaning on the usage or absence of an article, which is a bad practice.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
θεὸς in John 1:1 is a typical predicate nominative. The article has nothing to do with whether the Father is being referred to or the Son--that is determined by the context and construction. Since word order in Greek is flexible, the article in an equative construction denotes the subject, and the noun which lacks the article is a predicate.

θεὸς (in its various cases) is also anarthrous in John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, 1:18, and many other places where the Father is being spoken of. It is clear that you don't have a meaningful grasp on the language--so why are you commenting on it? You're only going to lead those astray on the Greek who haven't learned it themselves. And you're doing yourself a disservice by allowing theology to drive your study of the language.


I think you need to get this idea of the Trinitarian boogieman out of your head. It's keeping you from forming rational arguments, you're just butchering the Greek more and more as you are confuted. Integrity and honesty are important. It's becoming meaningless to converse with you because you are only interested in dogmatism.
The point is that the anarthrous θεὸς need not be a reference to the God of Israel in the GNT, and within the closed circuit context of John 1;1a,b and c the apostle deliberately refrains from using the article when saying the Logos is "god." By the way, is θεὸς in John 1:1c definite, or indefinite or purely qualitative ?
 

cjab

Well-known member
That's like saying the spirit of apostle Paul is apostle Paul. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God , not God. In other words, the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person from God anymore than the spirit of apostle Paul is a distinct person from the apostle Paul. Not sur how you could be unclear on these things.
The difference between the Holy Spirit and your analogy of Paul's spirit is that the Holy Spirit goes out from God, even to the jurisdiction of the earth. Therefore it can be personalized independently of God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
What I said was absolutely true, and this is a very disingenuous comment. Whether you receive it or not, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ very much is Christ being referred to as "the great God,"
Not

which corresponds with the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 (אֵל גִּבּוֹר).
God the Warrior = God in action. I'm not denying God was in Christ.

As is Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, "Your throne, O God, is forever," where it is employed in a nominative of address.
No article in the Hebew says it all

Also in 2 Peter 1:1 τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, "Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." It's not just me saying this, it's how the Greeks read and commented on these passages going back to the earliest record.
τοῦ θεοῦ is a title of the Father and so not subject to Sharp's rule.

cf. εγώ ειμι ο θεός (Gen 46:3)

Note the use of εγώ and not εμείς (there is only one person who is ο θεός).

Another point is, God has no God, and so Jesus calling the Father "God" precluded himself from being God.

You're again placing a theological meaning on the usage or absence of an article, which is a bad practice.
I am indeed placing a theological meaning on the usage or absence of an article, because the Greek grammar so dictates and scripture so dictates in passages such as Gen 46:3 and in numerous other places. It is you who are ignoring Greek and Hebrew article usage. Gen 46:3 could have been written εγώ ειμι θεός, but the article was inserted for a reason. It's also in the Hebrew. Gen 46:3 gives rises to Jn 1:1b.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
What do you think that means ?
I see the Holy Spirit as manifesting itself in earth's jurisdiction: hence it is given personality by Jesus. That's all I know:

Jhn 3:8

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit

Rev 5:6

The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Jhn 14:26

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Jhn 15:26

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I see the Holy Spirit as manifesting itself in earth's jurisdiction: hence it is given personality by Jesus. That's all I know:

Jhn 3:8

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit

Rev 5:6

The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Jhn 14:26

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Jhn 15:26

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.
Biblical words must be given biblical definitions : the spirit of any individual X is never another individual. Example: the spirit of apostle Paul.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Biblical words must be given biblical definitions : the spirit of any individual X is never another individual. Example: the spirit of apostle Paul.
Did I suggest that the Holy Spirit was "another" individual other that God?
The apostles and Jesus suggest not, cf. blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I suggested only that the Holy Spirit has personality when it comes out of God. Anything "sent" from God must have personality, because everything of God is invested with life. As God gives life, so that which comes from God must have life.

Rev 11:11 πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
That's right keep raising the stakes. How dumb can your assertions get?
By sitting on your high and mighty pontifical throne sneering at everything I say, you only show that you haven't a clue. In fact I'm getting the impression it's just a waste of time talking to you.

Name these other scholars who think that o θεός is used exclusively for God.
Why would Trinitarians make a case for o θεός being used exclusively for the Father's person? The whole revolutionary ethos of Trinitarianism is to oppose this idea.

κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός is the Pauline proof, if any were needed, that ὁ Θεός != ὁ Χριστὸς.

Paul is the authority whom no Trinitarian scholar can oppose.

Within the Jewish cultural setting, one could easily argue that anarthrous θεός was considered monadic and therefore definite even without the article.

This is pretty much what I also argue, except that without the article the properties or actions of the Father are in purview, rather than his person.

As for your three alleged exceptions, which I have already discounted, out of over 1000 references to θεός in the NT, I can't be bothered with this discussion any longer. As you can't see your case is hopeless for making out θεός as denoting either the person of the Father, or the person of the Christ or the person of the Holy Spirit....Amen.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Did I suggest that the Holy Spirit was "another" individual other that God?
The apostles and Jesus suggest not, cf. blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I suggested only that the Holy Spirit has personality when it comes out of God. Anything "sent" from God must have personality, because everything of God is invested with life. As God gives life, so that which comes from God must have life.

Rev 11:11 πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ
It doesn’t matter, the spirit of individual X is never an individual ( the same, or another) according to the scriptural definition, anymore than apostle Paul’s spirit is the same individual as apostle Paul. Come to think of it, how would that even make logical sense ?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
In fact I'm getting the impression it's just a waste of time talking to you.
Yes, but that's only because you don't realize that you are the wall that is being spoken to.
Why would Trinitarians make a case for o θεός being used exclusively for the Father's person? The whole revolutionary ethos of Trinitarianism is to oppose this idea.
They wouldn't because it is clearly not used exclusively for the Father. This FACT is why they generally don't, though like the composition of any group I am sure you could find an exception.
κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός is the Pauline proof, if any were needed, that ὁ Θεός != ὁ Χριστὸς.
No. It is proof that ὁ θεός (you have erroneously capitalized θ again) can be used as a reference to the Father. One exception to this disproves your assertion that "ὁ θεός [is] used exclusively for the Father's person, and you have been given several.
Paul is the authority whom no Trinitarian scholar can oppose.
And Paul uses a ὁ θεός in a way where the Father isn't intended thus disproving your assertion.
Within the Jewish cultural setting, one could easily argue that anarthrous θεός was considered monadic and therefore definite even without the article.
One can argue any stupid assertion they wish, it doesn't make it true or even likely. This is an area (underlined) in which you are an expert.
This is pretty much what I also argue, except that without the article the properties or actions of the Father are in purview, rather than his person.
This exclusively your argument. You don't have any source or evidence to back up your claim.
As for your three alleged exceptions, which I have already discounted,
At least you are honest here: you discounted them. You didn't take them seriously because they clearly refute your position.
out of over 1000 references to θεός in the NT, I can't be bothered with this discussion any longer. As you can't see your case is hopeless for making out θεός as denoting either the person of the Father, or the person of the Christ or the person of the Holy Spirit....Amen.
We get it; you won't be persuaded by the facts.
 

cjab

Well-known member
It doesn’t matter, the spirit of individual X is never an individual ( the same, or another) according to the scriptural definition, anymore than apostle Paul’s spirit is the same individual as apostle Paul. Come to think of it, how would that even make logical sense ?
How do you interpret Revelation 5:6? By your account, it cannot be logical. By my account, man is not able to limit God in any way. So if God can send out multiple Spirits from himself, then we have to accept it.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Yes, but that's only because you don't realize that you are the wall that is being spoken to.

They wouldn't because it is clearly not used exclusively for the Father. This FACT is why they generally don't, though like the composition of any group I am sure you could find an exception.

No. It is proof that ὁ θεός (you have erroneously capitalized θ again) can be used as a reference to the Father. One exception to this disproves your assertion that "ὁ θεός [is] used exclusively for the Father's person, and you have been given several.

And Paul uses a ὁ θεός in a way where the Father isn't intended thus disproving your assertion.
There is only one who is God.

εγώ ειμι ο θεός (Gen 46:3)

If you think there can be more than one ὁ θεός in heaven, you are probably gravitating even if inadvertently towards paganism, as polytheism was definitely repudiated by the OT.

Note the Hebrews never conceived the word of God or the spirit of God as increasing the numbers of Gods, or as supplanting YHWH.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
This exclusively your argument. You don't have any source or evidence to back up your claim.
Here is Intermediate New Testament Greek : a linguistic and exegetical approach / by Richard A. Young

"The Article Used with Monadic Nouns and Proper Names

Monadic nouns—A monadic noun refers to something of which there is thought to be only one (e.g., γη, ήλιος, θεός, ουρανός, σελήμη). The article is present about eighty percent of the time with the nouns listed, even though it is not needed to distinguish them from others since they are one of a kind. Dana and Mantey (1955:139-40) suggest that the article with θεός usually signifies divine personality, either God the Father or the Triune Godhead, whereas its absence focuses on the essence or attributes of divinity."

_______________

This view is pretty similar to my view, except obviously I don't accept that the "Triune Godhead" (horrible phrase) can be denoted as a single person (as it's contrary to NT teaching), nor do I view anarthrous θεός as about essence, but rather about properties and deeds.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
How do you interpret Revelation 5:6? By your account, it cannot be logical. By my account, man is not able to limit God in any way. So if God can send out multiple Spirits from himself, then we have to accept it.
"Seven" is the number of completion in the Revelation. The "seven spirits of God" is an epithet of the Holy Spirit of God in it's role as the fulfilling power of God; to bring into completion all of his purposes and plans for the end times.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
If you think there can be more than one ὁ θεός in heaven, you are probably gravitating even if inadvertently towards paganism, as polytheism was definitely repudiated by the OT.
It's what "John" said in John 1:1. Are you accusing him of paganism/polytheism, too?
Note the Hebrews never conceived the word of God or the spirit of God as increasing the numbers of Gods, or as supplanting YHWH.
Nor did the New Testament writers, but they wrote what they wrote.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Here is Intermediate New Testament Greek : a linguistic and exegetical approach / by Richard A. Young

"The Article Used with Monadic Nouns and Proper Names

Monadic nouns—A monadic noun refers to something of which there is thought to be only one (e.g., γη, ήλιος, θεός, ουρανός, σελήμη). The article is present about eighty percent of the time with the nouns listed, even though it is not needed to distinguish them from others since they are one of a kind. Dana and Mantey (1955:139-40) suggest that the article with θεός usually signifies divine personality, either God the Father or the Triune Godhead, whereas its absence focuses on the essence or attributes of divinity."

_______________

This view is pretty similar to my view, except obviously I don't accept that the "Triune Godhead" (horrible phrase) can be denoted as a single person (as it's contrary to NT teaching), nor do I view anarthrous θεός as about essence, but rather about properties and deeds.
What you are saying is that this source doesn't support your position at all.
 
Top